How to do gun control.......

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Dave:  Great question. I think the SAVE act as currently passed through the House is ridiculous. It would indeed disenfranchise millions. My wife has a passport, but if she did not, she would have to get certified copies of her birth certificate and marriage license to match her registered voting name to her US citizenship,and that is an undue burden. So I agree with you… assuming the SAVE act, as passed by the House were  to become law.

Where we differ is that I know the SAVE act passed by the House has 0% chance of becoming an enforceable law.

The SAVE act as it is presently drafted will never pass the Senate, and it will be eviscerated by the Supreme Court if it did pass. As currently drafted it is a ridiculously unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.  Mark my words, any final SAVE act that passes out of the Senate will require only a drivers license, a state issued ID card, a military ID, a student ID, or some other readily available identification card to register and vote.  

You have probably read that 80% of the US favors some ID requirement to register for voting. What the citizens are saying is that people who want to vote need to demonstrate in a relatively typical fashion that they are who they say they are. In Colorado well over 95% of voters register at the drivers license bureau, when we apply for or renew our drivers license.

We do, of course, have to prove our identity when we first get a drivers license, and that is not an undue burden on anyone. Those who have no drivers license, no state issued ID card, and no  other papers of any sort will be burdened, but that is a vanishing small number, and each state can figure out a way for them to prove their identity if they still want to vote.

I imagine you require some sort of identification in Canada if you want to vote?   Most countries do have some sort of ID requirement. So, personally, I am in favor of some minimal identification requirement in order to register to vote, usually a drivers license. On the other hand, I  think it would be ridiculous and unconstitutional to require a married woman to prove that she is a citizen back to birth if she has changed her name. Same deal with other people who changed their names for any number of legal reasons.  

bottom line, the SAVE act as it is currently drafted is a ridiculous and unconstitutional burden on our guaranteed right to vote, and it will never become law.  I expect some watered down, relatively simple and non-invasive voter ID law to pass eventually, and Trump, as is his style,  will claim victory and move onto the next ginned up crisis.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

It looks like Canada does require a relatively straightforward ID of some sort, to prove identity, in order to vote. This is a good reasonable law.   Well done 👍🏼.  I think this is the sort of reasonable law the US will end up with eventually.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"In my opinion, no one will be disenfranchised, no matter how this decision goes."

"So, this is a relatively minor case of federal statutory interpretation."

If that was the true, then you wouldn't have Trump and the GOP pushing so hard for SCOTUS to overturn the case, which they will do. 
Afterall, the GOP, in particular, has always been a staunch advocate of states-rights and against any intrusive effort by the federal government to be deemed superior, especially in matters of electing officials to office. Thus, it seems evident the latter is the real motivation driving this case and not some sort of clamor for clarification of a "minor case of federal statutory interpretation." Otherwise, they wouldn't be pushing so hard on this one...

Originally Posted by James Brown

The outcome of this case will make no difference, as we discussed above. You did not answer when I asked whether you personally thought the outcome of this case mattered, one way or the other.

Trump is pushing hard for one reason only… He’s using this case to advance his BS voter fraud narrative. Also, does any Democrat really think that allowing “postmark“ +5 day mail in ballots is necessary to preserve the right to vote for anyone?

I’m going to stand by my opinion that this is a relatively minor case of federal statutory interpretation. That does not mean the parties will not exploit the case to spin up their rabid bases.

Originally Posted by James Brown

The outcome of this case will make no difference, as we discussed above. You did not answer when I asked whether you personally thought the outcome of this case mattered, one way or the other.

Trump is pushing hard for one reason only… He’s using this case to advance his BS voter fraud narrative. Also, does any Democrat really think that allowing “postmark“ +5 day mail in ballots is necessary to preserve the right to vote for anyone?

I’m going to stand by my opinion that this is a relatively minor case of federal statutory interpretation. That does not mean the parties will not exploit the case to spin up their rabid bases.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Currently, 14 states and the District of Columbia allow grace periods for late-arriving mail ballots, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. A Votebeat analysis of data from the 2024 election found that at least 750,000 ballots eligible to be counted arrived after Election Day that year. Groups representing military and overseas voters have warned they could be disproportionately affected, and election experts have also said tightening the receipt deadlines could disenfranchise voters affected by slow postal service through no fault of their own."

https://www.votebeat.org/national/2026/03/23/supreme-court-late-mail-ballots-election-day-mississippi-2026-midterm-elections/

IMO, anything in this regard that potentially impedes the counting of votes is generally a boon to Trump and his fellow Republicans.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

IMO, anything in this regard that potentially impedes the counting of votes is generally a boon to Trump and his fellow Republicans.

Originally Posted by James Brown

What do you base your opinion on?  Trump won the hypothetical "popular vote."  Are Democrats less able to vote on time, for some reason I'm not aware of?

Originally Posted by James Brown

Every now and then I like to remind you I voted for Harris in the last election.   Any break from D party dogma can be interpreted as support for Trump, which is not my intention here.    

I think the SAVE act, as passed by the house is an unconstitutional disaster.   At the same time, I think it is beneficial, and certainly not a big deal, if mailed ballots must be received by election day to count, with appropriate exceptions for military personnel stationed overseas, as already included in other federal laws.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Every now and then I like to remind you I voted for Harris in the last election.   Any break from D party dogma can be interpreted as support for Trump, which is not my intention here.    

I think the SAVE act, as passed by the house is an unconstitutional disaster.   At the same time, I think it is beneficial, and certainly not a big deal, if mailed ballots must be received by election day to count, with appropriate exceptions for military personnel stationed overseas, as already included in other federal laws.